AP: Islamists Dominate Bahrain Elections

[Eugene]

Islamists Dominate Bahrain Elections

By JIM KRANE
The Associated Press
Sunday, November 26, 2006; 11:36 AM

MANAMA, Bahrain -- Islamist candidates swept to victory in Bahrain's
parliamentary election, splitting the vote between hardline Shiite and
Sunni Muslims while female and liberal candidates fared poorly in the
U.S.-allied kingdom, preliminary results showed Sunday.

With several races headed for runoffs, Saturday's vote appeared to
reinforce the sectarian divide between the Persian Gulf island's
governing Sunni minority and the underprivileged Shiites who make up
two-thirds of its 700,000 people.

The results also underlined a deepening social and religious conservatism
in Bahrain, which has been among the most liberal of Arab states in the
region and is host to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

-snip-

The religious sweep in Bahrain mirrored results of elections in Iraq, Egypt
and Palestinian territories, where Muslim hard-liners have made inroads.
The vote was watched closely by neighboring Arab countries planning
similar steps toward democracy or dealing with their own Shiite populations
clamoring for power.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600280.html

[madrchsod]

1. here is a very interesting look at bahrain

and maybe why the "islamists" are gaining acceptance

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/26/bahrainis_use_google.html
Boing Boing: Bahrainis use Google Earth to spy on royals' palaces

be sure and check the links..

[NJmaverick]

2. Same story all over the world

Liberals lose and the world does as well. Some say religion is the root of most of this planet's problems. More like conservatism is the root of most conflict.

[happyslug]

3. In most of these countries the "Conservatives" are the only ORGANIZED opposition.

Thus when you go from a Dictatorship to any form of Democracy, the "Conservatives" win. Now most of these "ConservativeS" are not Conservatives in the traditional western use of that term (no in the terms of the Neo-Cons who run the US today, remember the Democrats don't take over the Congress till January 3rd, 2007). These "Conservatives" hold a position within the country and outside the country. Thus these "Conservatives" have international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs.

During WWII in Europe you only had two organization capable of any form of effective Opposition and Resistance, one was the Communists, the other was the Catholics (Thus when Von Moltke tried to get opposition to Hitler in Germany during WWII, he approached the Catholic Hierarchy, even through he was a Protestant). The reason for this is both had extensive international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs. The Communist opposed Hitler (Through only after the invasion of Russia in June 1941) and the contribution to the defeat of Hitler of the Italian and French Communists is beyond this thread but was extensive and set up the Power of the Communist parties in France and Italy). During WWII the Catholics were less effective do to their opposition to the Communists (Which lead to support for German's fight against the Communists) but the Catholics support for the Allies, again on the Western and Italian Fronts, also was effective (But do to opposition to the Communists, not nearly as effective as the Communists during WWII).

Now, after WWII, the Catholics showed their power for the Catholics support for "Moderate" Government in Western Europe For example the First leader of post-WWII Germany was a Catholic Politician from the Wiemar period (He had sat out the Hitler period). Catholics maintain the Governments of Italy and France during the post-WWII period. In Eastern Europe, the Catholics were part of the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 and the Polish Solidarity movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Thus when the Communist fell in the late 1980s, the Catholics step right in. Now since that time period the Catholics have lost power, but have retained their international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs.

When it comes to the the Moslem Brotherhood (Egypt), Hamas (Palestine), the Shiites of the Persian Gulf, (Which are the "Conservatives" being discussed in this article), these organization also have international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs. As such when the present dictators are overthrown or when any Dictatorship goes democratic, the groups with the best international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs tends to win. These groups are set up already, these groups exist in the countries (Do to their religious connections), thus are best set up to oppose the existing rulers in these countries AND win any fair election do to their organization.

Thus, it is these three factors (international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs) that permit these organizations to win, and until someone else has these three factors, they will win any fair elections. When Liberal have these three Factors they can also win (See South America where left-wing politicians are winning elections for they have these three factors).

The problem is the present rulers of these Arab/Moslem Countries are tyrants who destroy any opposition they can. Thus only the religious based oppositions can survive, for most of these tyrants pass themselves off as protecting the faith. It is an uneasy relationship, that is unstable, but the rulers can not destroy the religious organization without destroying themselves. Thus the organization survives and if given an opportunity be used as a weapon for people to rally around during a crisis of the Dictator and as that crisis continues the Religious group takes over (See Iran in the late 1970s). The same with these groups until they are in control, then and only then can opposition to the religious group arise (as in Poland and Eastern Europe after 1990).

My point is that the only road for reform of the Middle East is the removal of the present Ruling Elite, which leads to the rule by the Radical Moslems. Only with the raise of some sort of Democracy under Radical Rule, can liberal ideas can start to form international connections, a strong hierarchy, and a common set of beliefs. Until the liberals can do so in some sort of Democracy, liberals will NOT survive in the Middle East. The best solution is to permit the Radical Islamics to take control in an election, thus making elections an legitimate way to get power (and to lose power). If the Middle East countries do this the radicals will rule for about 10 years, and then lose power to people who knows how to run a modern country. The Switch will take longer if the Radicals take power by force (As did the Communists in Russian in 1917), but sooner or later you need the support of the people and the only way to get that support is through an election.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. The Shia aren' the only conservatives in Bahrain, though

Remember, they're a very quick skip over to Saudi. Share a great deal of history and culture with the Saudis. Who are most definitely conservative (too mild a word, really. Reactionary authoritarians) and most definitely Sunni.

[happyslug]

7. But the area of Saudi Arabia around the Gulf AND the oil Fields are Shiite

While the Saudi' are Sunni (Actually the Wahhabi Sect of Sunnism), the area around the Persian gulf (Where most of the Arabian oil is) is dominated by Shiites. Thus while Saudi Arabia is NOT Shiite, the area of Arabia that the US is most concerned about is.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050920/2005092024.html
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/defense/islamic-extremism-terrorism.html

As to the Wahhabi Sect of Sunnism, Wahhabi makes the Shiites of Iran look like radical liberals. Iran women can hold jobs, get elected to office and even drive a car. That is NOT possible in Wahhabi dominated Saudi Arabia. Furthermore the House of Saud is itself WAHHABI.

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2006/ioi/060131-usip-saudi-iraq-6.html
http://www.meta-religion.com/Extremism/Islamic_extremism/wahhabism.htm
http://www.meforum.org/article/535
http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters2004/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_WahhabiIslam1.htm

Thus you have TWO radical groups in play in the Persian Gulf and Iraq. To a degree both are working together against the US, but also to a degree they OPPOSE the present rulers of the States of the Persian Gulf.

This has caused some problem, bin Laden for example is a Wahhabi, but the only MOSLEM country standing up to the US in the Persian Gulf is Iran (Which is Shiite). Wahhabism permits its follows to attack any country which claims to be Moslem but does not completely implement Moslem law. Thus bin Laden's attack on Saudi Arabia since the US first set up camps during the First Gulf war (Moslem law PROHIBITS the use of NON-Moslem Troops). Thus bin laden and Al Queda oppose the US and any of its allies in the region.

On the other hand, bin Laden as a good Wahhabi oppose the Shiites of Iran. Thus these two groups oppose each other, but they are persistent reports of bin Laden and Iran working together. This appears more an Alliance of Convenience (i.e. against the common enemy of the US) than a joining of these two groups together.

Any my point was NOT to say that when dictatorships fall (and all do sooner or later) the people who will take over are the people who are the best organized. In Western Europe that appeared to be the Communist until the US and the Catholic Church worked together to defeat the Communist (and Stalin told the Western Communists to NOT do any Guerrilla actions let the US attack Russia in retaliation). The Catholic Church was important for while it had supported Hitler against the Communists, it had also opposed Hitler (except in his dealings with the Communists). Stalin decision not to provoke the US neutralized the Communists and thus the present pro-US, anti-Communist governments of Western Europe (With strong Socialist tendency to minimized the call of the Communists for Social Revolution).
Notice the Catholic Church itself had little power in these Government, but the Church did NOT need to have power, its power was it had the organization (both local and international) to provide a framework to form political parties to take over the Government. Other international Groups provided this service (For example the Social Democrats) but my point was the groups that did take over had existed BEFORE WWII and were able to survive WWII with some sort of political organization so that some sort of political control be set up when the political control of the previous Government has ended (In the case of the US and UK's liberation of Western Europe, as the US and UK forces took France) and in the Case of Germany as the Nazi regime fell apart in April and May 1945.

My point was it was NOT the ideology that was important, but the fact the group had and effective organization that could be used to set up a political system. Now the Organization was often the result of the Ideology (and in that aspect ideology of the group was important) but the key was the effective international, national and local organization of the group when the opportunity to take over presented itself. Right now the two best organized groups are the Shiites and Al Queda. Neither is the centralized control of a national Government, but do to each having their own ideology, they are willing to form up into groups when and if such groups can be formed. Thus it was the Shiites who took over Iran as the Shah lost power, the liberals tried to rule but had no longer support for they had no local presence, while the Imams of Iran did have local presence. The liberals of Iran could count of their Friends in the West, but they had no one close by to support them like the Shiites in the rest of the Region supported the Shiites of Iran at that time. The Communists seems to have some support in Iran, but lost out to the better organized and lead Shiites.

Thus I can see a problem in the Mid-East for the next 20 years. With oil peaking production peaking in that time period, the present rulers will use their increase wealth to buy off the lower classes and the Shiite Leadership, but sooner or later each country will have to face a drop in income do to lower production of oil (You can't sell what you don't have). With the drop in Income the Ruling Families will try to hold onto their present life style and to do so, cut services to the lower classes which will lead to revolution and these radical groups taking over. One of the reason for the expansion of Al Queda during the 1990s was the FALL of oil prices in the 1990s, this reduced the revenue to the House of Saud at the time when the population of Arabia was expanding rapidly. This lead to a drop in the standard of Living of most Arabians which lead to disenchantment with the House of Saud and an embrace of Al Queda. The increase in the price of oil since 9/11 seems to have stabilized most of the Persian Gulf States, I have my doubts it will last long.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. I can see this coming back to bite them.

One of the reasons that Bahrain has done well is that it set itself up as a center for western business in the Gulf -- particularly banking.

Laws against things like alcohol were relaxed. Westerners were basically left alone and treated decently. By Gulf standards, it was a wild and crazy place!

Should it become the restrictive, hard-line kind of place that Saudi is, western businesses won't be so busy there. And Bahrain doesn't have a whole heck of a lot else to offer.

[JerseygirlCT]

6. The other thing that occurs to me is that this is a trend we see

all over the middle east -- where radical groups take power as the representatives of a downtrodden underclass. The nasty side effect of this movement is less democracy and a move toward very restrictive theocracy or other radical governments.